Difference between revisions of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Wikipedia's article on dinosaurs denies evidence that they existed alongside man)
(move from Examples of Bias in Wikipedia)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref>  For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/>  In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref>  Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
 
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref>  For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/>  In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref>  Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
 
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref>
 
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref>
 +
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it.  Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
 +
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref>  The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
 
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
 
[[category:wikipedia]]
 
[[category:wikipedia]]

Revision as of 17:36, June 28, 2011

This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to evolution and science:

  1. Wikipedia's entry on the starlight problem is a typically atheistic distortion,[1] omitting that light appears to older than the age of the universe under atheistic models as well as biblical explanations, and that the expansion of the universe can explain this anomaly under either theory.
  2. Wikipedia falsely states that there is "precise agreement"[2] between the data for PSR B1913+16 and predictions of the General Theory of Relativity, when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."[3]
  3. The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the theory of relativity and Newtonian gravity, but the Wikipedia article describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.[4]
  4. Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the Theory of Relativity, instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)[5]
  5. Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the theory of evolution, such as Dr. William Dembski, whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by liberal critics.[6] For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.[6] In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.[7] Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
  6. Wikipedia's article on dinosaurs contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the best of the public.[8]
  7. Wikipedia's entry on the Scopes trial downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict."[9][10]
  8. On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information[11] from the Wikipedia entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.[12] The editor then predicted on Conservapedia that the liberal bias would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.[13]

References

  1. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem
  2. ↑ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).
  3. ↑ See PSR B1913+16.
  4. ↑ The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in Essay:Quantifying Order.
  5. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski
  7. ↑ http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf
  8. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
  9. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)
  10. ↑ Thanks much to a student in our American History course for pointing this out.
  11. ↑ The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[1]
  12. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826
  13. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310
v • d • e
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
Examples by category:
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia:_Science_and_Evolution&oldid=883922"